The Physics Of Space Battles

Joseph Shoer is a Ph. D candidate in aerospace engineering, studying how modular spacecraft could be assembled and hoping that they will be the telescopes and human exploration vehicles of the future, and not for crushing the dreams of Martian colonists.

I had a discussion recently with friends about the various depictions of space combat in science fiction movies, TV shows and books. We have the fighter-plane engagements of Star Wars, the subdued, two-dimensional naval combat in Star Trek, the Newtonian planes of Battlestar Galactica, the staggeringly furious energy exchanges of the combat wasps in Peter Hamilton's books, and the use of antimatter rocket engines themselves as weapons in other sci-fi. But suppose we get out there, go terraform Mars, and the Martian colonists actually revolt. Or suppose we encounter hostile aliens. How would space combat actually go?

First, let me point out something that Ender's Game got right and something it got wrong. What it got right is the essentially three-dimensional nature of space combat, and how that would be fundamentally different from land, sea and air combat. In principle, yes, your enemy could come at you from any direction at all. In practice, though, the Buggers are going to do no such thing. At least, not until someone invents an FTL drive, and we can actually pop our battle fleets into existence anywhere near our enemies. The marauding space fleets are going to be governed by orbit dynamics – not just of their own ships in orbit around planets and suns, but those planets' orbits. For the same reason that we have Space Shuttle launch delays, we'll be able to tell exactly what trajectories our enemies could take between planets: the launch window. At any given point in time, there are only so many routes from here to Mars that will leave our imperialist forces enough fuel and energy to put down the colonists' revolt. So, it would actually make sense to build space defence platforms in certain orbits, to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space, or even to mine parts of the void. It also means that strategy is not as hopeless when we finally get to the Bugger homeworld: the enemy ships will be concentrated into certain orbits, leaving some avenues of attack guarded and some open. (Of course, once our ships manoeuvre towards those unguarded orbits, they will be easily observed – and potentially countered.)

Now, Let's Talk Technology

First, pending a major development in propulsion technology, combat spacecraft would likely get around the same way the Apollo spacecraft went to the Moon and back: with orbit changes effected by discrete main-engine burns. The only other major option is a propulsion system like ion engines or solar sails, which produce a very low amount of thrust over a very long time. However, the greater speed from burning a chemical, nuclear, or antimatter rocket in a single manoeuvre is likely a better tactical option. One implication of rocket propulsion is that there will be relatively long periods during which Newtonian physics govern the motions of dogfighting spacecraft, punctuated by relatively short periods of manoeuvring. Another is that combat in orbit would be very different from combat in "deep space", which is what you probably think of as how space combat should be – where a spacecraft thrusts one way, and then keeps going that way forever. No, around a planet, the tactical advantage in a battle would be determined by orbit dynamics: which ship is in a lower (and faster) orbit than which; who has a circular orbit and who has gone for an ellipse; relative rendezvous trajectories that look like winding spirals rather than straight lines.

Second, there are only a few ways to manoeuvre the attitude of a spacecraft around – to point it in a new direction. The fast ways to do that are to fire an off-centre thruster or to tilt a gyroscope around to generate a torque. Attitude manoeuvres would be critical to point the main engine of a space fighter to set up for a burn, or to point the weapons systems at an enemy. Either way, concealing the attitude manoeuvres of the space fighter would be important to gain a tactical advantage. So I think gyroscopes ("CMGs" in the spacecraft lingo) would be a better way to go – they could invisibly live entirely within the space fighter hull, and wouldn't need to be mounted on any long booms (which would increase the radar, visible, and physical cross-section of the fighter) to get the most torque on the craft. With some big CMGs, a spacecraft could flip end-for-end in a matter of seconds or less. If you come upon a starfighter with some big, spherical bulbs near the midsection, they are probably whopping big CMGs and the thing will be able to point its guns at you wherever you go. To mitigate some of the directionality of things like weapons fire and thruster burns, space fighters would probably have weapons and engines mounted at various points around their hull; but a culture interested in efficiently mass-producing space warships would probably be concerned about manufacturing so many precision parts for a relatively fragile vessel, and the craft would likely only have one main engine rather than, say, four equal tetrahedral engines.

How About Weapons?

We have to consider just how you might damage a spacecraft to put it out of action.

Explosions are basically a waste of energy in space. On the ground, these are devastating because of the shock wave that goes along with them. But in the vacuum of space, an explosion just creates some tenuous, expanding gases that would be easily dissipated by a hull. No, to damage spacecraft systems, you can't hit them with gas unless it's really, really concentrated and energetic. So unless you want to just wait till your enemy is close enough that you can point your engines at him, the best bets for ranged weapons are kinetic impactors and radiation.

A kinetic impactor is basically just a slug that goes really fast and hits the enemy fighter, tearing through the hull, damaging delicate systems with vibrations, throwing gyroscopes out of alignment so that they spin into their enclosures and explode into shards, puncturing tanks of fuel and other consumables, or directly killing the pilot and crew. You know…bullets. But it sounds much more technical and science-fictiony to say "mass driver" or "kinetic lance" or something of the sort. Of course, the simplest way to implement this sort of weapon in space is just as some kind of machine gun or cannon. Those will work in space (ask the Soviets, they tested a cannon on their first Salyut space station), and the shells will do plenty of damage if they hit anything. However, space is filled mostly with empty space, and hitting the enemy ships might be a challenge. Furthermore, if the impactors are too large, the enemy could counter them by firing their own point-defence slugs and knocking the shells out of line. Therefore, I contend that the most effective kinetic space weapons would be either flak shells or actively thrusting, guided missiles. The flak shells would explode into a hail of fragmented shards, able to tear through un-armoured systems of many craft at once without the shell directly hitting its target, or able to strike a target even after it tries to evade with a last-minute engine burn. The missiles would be a bit different from the missiles we are used to on Earth, which must continuously thrust to sustain flight. In space, such a weapon would rapidly exhaust its fuel and simply become a dummy shell. No, a space missile would either be fired as an unguided projectile and power up its engine after drifting most of the way to its target, or it would fire its engine in sporadic, short bursts. A definite downside to kinetic weapons on a starfighter is that they would impart momentum to the fighter or change its mass properties. Very large cannons or missiles might therefore be impractical, unless the fighter can quickly compensate for what is essentially a large rocket firing. Even that compensation might give the enemy just the window he needs…

Radiation-based weapons that burn out the electronics of a spacecraft sound exotic, but are still potentially achievable. This would be the attraction of nuclear weapons in space: not the explosion, which would affect just about nothing, but the burst of energetic particles and the ensuing electromagnetic storm. Still, such a burst would have to be either pretty close to the target vessel to scramble its systems, or it would have to be made directional in some way, to focus the gamma-ray and zinging-proton blast. But while we're talking about focused energy weapons, lets just go with a tool that we already use to cut sheet metal on Earth: lasers. In space, laser light will travel almost forever without dissipating from diffraction. Given a large enough power supply, lasers could be used at range to slice up enemy warships. The key phrase there, though, is "given a large enough power supply." Power is hard to come by in the space business. So, expect space laser weapons to take one of three forms: small lasers designed not to destroy, but to blind and confuse enemy sensors; medium-sized lasers that would be fired infrequently and aimed to melt specific vulnerable points on enemy space fighters, like antennae, gimbals, and manoeuvring thrusters; and large lasers pumped by the discharge from a large capacitor or similar energy storage device to cut a physical slice into the enemy craft wherever they hit. Such a large weapon would likely only be fired at the very beginning of a battle, because the commander of a ship with such a weapon would not want to keep his capacitor charged when it might unexpectedly blow its energy all at once once he's in the thick of things.

Deflector shields like those in fiction are not possible at present, but it would still make sense to armour combat spacecraft to a limited extent. The spaceframes of the fighters would likely be designed solely for the space environment; the actual ships would be launched within the payload fairings of a rocket or assembled in space. If launched from the ground, armour must be minimised to reduce the launch weight of the spacecraft. But if built and launched in space, it would make sense to plate over vital systems of the vehicle. Thick armour would prevent flak or small lasers from piercing delicate components, and might mitigate a direct strike from a kinetic impactor or heavy cutting laser. However, the more heavily armoured and massive a space fighter is, the more thrust it will take to manoeuvre in orbit and the more energy it will take to spin in place. (Here's where computer games get space combat all wrong: the mass of a huge space cruiser would not place an upper limit on the speed of a vehicle, but it would reduce the acceleration a given engine could produce compared to the same engine on a less massive vehicle.)

I'm assuming that we'd have some intrepid members of the United Earth Space Force crewing these combat vessels. Or, at least, crewing some of them – robotic drone fighters would be a tremendous boon to space soldiers, but the communication lag between planets and vessels in orbit would make the split-second judgments of humans necessary at times. (Until we perfect AIs… but if we're giving them the space fighters from the beginning, we deserve the robot uprising we'll get.) The crews will hardly be sitting around nice conference-room command bridges with no seat belts; nor will they be standing upright in slate-grey console pits with glowing glass displays all over. It's not even a good idea for them to have windows, which would be vulnerable to flak and could give the crew an intense sense of disorientation as the spacecraft manoeuvres, and could give them tremendous trouble adapting to rapid changes in light levels as the ship rotates near a planet or star. No, they should be strapped into secure couches and centrally located in the most protected part of the spacecraft. They should also be in full pressure suits, and the interior cabin of the spacecraft should already be evacuated – to prevent fires, or any secondary damage if all the atmosphere rushes out a hull breach. This also reduces the need for escape pods. Camera views from the exterior of the ship and graphical representations of the tactical situation would then be projected directly onto helmet faceplates.

Now, for the final word, let's say the United Earth Space Force defeats the Martian rebels in orbit. What do we do to hit them on the ground? Well, strategic weapons from space are easy: kinetic impactors again. You chuck big ol' spears, aerodynamically shaped so they stay on target and don't burn up in the atmosphere, onto ground targets and watch gravitational potential energy turn into kinetic energy and excavate you a brand-new crater. At some point, though, the imperialist Earthlings probably want to take over the existing infrastructure on Mars. Time to get out the Space Marines!

It's not terribly expensive or difficult, comparatively speaking, to get people from orbit down to a planet surface. You fall. This is the purpose of a space capsule. What's really, really, prohibitively difficult is getting them back up again. So, the victorious orbital forces would have to bring in a transport ship chock full of Space Marines and drop them all at once in little capsules (little because they can only be so big for the atmosphere to effectively brake them, and because you don't want all your Marines perishing in some unfortunate incident). Some orbital forces would remain in place to threaten the ground with bombardment and give the Marines a bit more muscle, but really, the ground-pounders are going to have to be pretty self-sufficient. If they ever want to come back up, they would have to build and/or fuel their own ascent vehicle. (This is the problem facing any NASA Mars efforts, too: getting back up through the Martian atmosphere is much harder than any of the lunar ascents were.)

What Would Combat Spacecraft End Up Looking Like?

There are good arguments to have both large and small spacecraft in the Earth forces. A big spacecraft could have a lot more armour to keep its systems and crew safe, more room for large fuel tanks and electrical power supplies, and larger mass to resist impulses from cannon recoil. However, a smaller craft would be less visible to radar, more manoeuvrable, and could achieve higher accelerations for constant engine thrust. As with just about any military force, the role of the craft would be tailored to the tactical operations required, so the Space Force would probably include several sizes of craft.

Enemies could come at your ship from any direction in space, which means that you would want to react, strike, and counterattack in any direction. So, you would either have to mount weaponry all around your starfighter, put the weapons on gimbals so that they could rapidly point in any direction, or make the fighter manoeuvrable enough that it could rapidly point in any direction. Gimbals would be a bad option, because they would introduce points of increased vulnerability, unless they could be very well-armoured. I conclude that the big ships would have many weapons, pointed in many directions; the small ships would have a few weapons, with the main weapon systems pointed in one direction.

Manoeuvrability (angular acceleration) you could achieve with gyroscopes, or by mounting engines or thrusters away from your fighter's centre of mass. For the highest levels of manoeuvrability, the spacecraft should be close to spherical and these engines should be as off-centre as possible, which might mean putting thrusters on long booms or struts. The problem with this kind of Firefly-like engine layout is that it becomes very vulnerable. If a fighter can achieve high manoeuvrability with gyros, those are probably the best option.

So, I think the small fighter craft would be nearly spherical, with a single main engine and a few guns or missiles facing generally forward. They would have gyroscopes and fuel tanks in their shielded centres. It would make sense to build their outer hulls in a faceted manner, to reduce their radar cross-section. Basically, picture a bigger, armoured version of the lunar module. The larger warships would also probably be nearly spherical, with a small cluster of main engines facing generally backward and a few smaller engines facing forward or sideways for manoeuvring. Cannons, lasers, and missile ports would face outward in many directions. On a large enough space cruiser, it would even be a good idea to put docking ports for the small fighters, so that the fighters don't have to carry as many consumables on board.

I think it's time to sketch some pictures and write some stories!

Space-Wide Peace

I certainly hope we don't get into any space wars. Human nature being what it is, though, and given how scarce a lot of resources really are on the scale of a solar system or a galaxy, I don't think it's out of the question. I would like to think that when we start colonising other worlds, we will be sufficiently enlightened to do so from on board the Ship of the Imagination, and not as futuristic conquistadores. Still, the part of me that loves science fiction has fun with these thought experiments.

Reprinted with permission from Joseph Shoer. Photo by TG Daily.


Comments

    What is that image from?

      3d mark vantage?

    Looks like starwars

    Yeh it's from 3D Mark

    Anyone notice that in all those movies u here the explosions, the real physics is that there is no such thing as sound in space. (sounds can not travel through a vacume)

      Not always. Some filmmakers get it right (a la 2009's Star Trek) but even then they can't eliminate space sound altogether. Wouldn't make for tension-filled, exciting battle scenes that audiences love.

    What about the earth ships in Babylon 5, specifically the starfury. That was a pretty realistic space fighter in a really sensible layout for manuverability.

      One game did get the sound "right" in a way.

      The backstory of Eve makes note of the fact that there was no sound carried in space, and that humans work better with audio as well as visual cues. So the ships generate a soundscape reflecting actions outside the ship.

      I have to agree with Dave about B5 - ther was even a rumor of NASA consulting with the show ship designers.

        I disagree about the spherical shape.

        What you can't intercept, you need to dodge. The optimum shape is a cylinder, which you keep end on to your enemy, to reduce the cross section.

        This also ties in with using a linear accelerator as the kinetic energy weapon (which, in a vacuum, allows far higher muzzle velocities than projectiles powered by chemical explosives).

        Knocking out electronics is trivial to counter - Faraday cage.

        Lasers can be partially countered with high reflectivity coating, so the look 'n' feel you're probably going to get is metallic and very shiny.

        A big element of space warfare you didn't mention is information. Targeting information is vital in a kinetic combat at planetary orbit ranges. And that means you may get not just a single fighter, but an accompanying cloud of stealthed drones.

    One point missed by the soon-to-be Doctor Shoer is the triple threat of water. Water can be quickly converted to dramatically alter a spacecraft's delta vee. Water can become a solid, kinetic kill weapon when frozen into a single solid. Water can be used in an ablative attack in the form of "snow". Given the different vectors that might be involved, snow be like swinging a giant hammer in a vacuum. A spacecraft can hide behind a snow cloud. Snow would refract any incoming coherent energy beam, thereby mitigating its effects to some degree. Snow can hide sensors and other nasty surprises, by scrambling radar. Water can be reclaimed from a space battle by the winning side. Water is the payload of choice for the space combat craft of any size.

    Let us also re-visit the use of nuclear weapons for a moment. A shock wave is nasty, especially when felt through the hull of a spacecraft large enough to withstand the initial, savage release of energy inherent with fission or fusion. A direct hit (or at least in close proximity) with a nuclear reaction is a very bad thing indeed. No reasonably sized (or reasonably accelerated) kinetic weapon can match the accuracy or the punch of a nuke. The main reason a nuke is less effective in space is the lack of anything to react with the fissile material from the bomb. A proximity or direct strike with a nuke allows the target to become part of the process, if you will.

    One last point I am uncomfortable with is Shoer's failure to point out that an enemy wanting to bombard a planet does not have to have a command of space above the planet - just a presence there, to defend the in-falling missiles. These missiles can be kinetic, to limit radioactivity planet-side, or nukes, to ensure destruction, now that we are once again taking full advantage of the processes involved with the nuclear reaction, given the presence of an atmosphere (no matter how thin).

    Shoer has begun an excellent discussion of the physics of space combat, but I am sure he would be the first to admit that no one thinks of everything. I would have liked to see more discussion on the likelihood of the various scales of asymmetric engagement. What would we counter advanced aliens' "mega-lasers" with? Would it be more efficient to target a low tech enemy's sensors, rather than directly attack their spacecraft?

    One last comment, to address a previous comment: Faraday cages make excellent light bulbs on the electromagnetic spectrum. Good stuff, people.

    In rebuttal to King of the Snow's comments about nukes, a fission reaction does not need to have any atmosphere to react with so a nuke would go off just as well in a vacuum as it does within an atmosphere . Electronic weapons however do need a medium through which to travel and so in space would not work. Further more if electricity is able to travel, say in the upper atmosphere of a planet it will be totally in effective because what makes electricity do damage is a current and because a target would not be grounded it would instantly achieve the same voltage as the muzzle of the weapon targeted at it. This would mean the craft would be exposed to only a few nano seconds of current, not long enough to do any damage to electronics even if at an impossibly high voltage.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now